Posted by ushere on 09/15/05 10:06

i would say the stuff i'm shooting on my 170 (sd) is the equal of, or better
than the material i used to shoot on my 400sp. (allowence for lens, etc., -
though i'm shooting in controlled situations, so 'difficult' lighting isn't
a factor).

i've no personal experience of hd, other than having a reasonably close look
at, and viewing material from, a fx1 (or the one with xlr's). i was most
impressed by the quality on tape (again, controlled shoot), and the camera
itself. however, i didn't see the edited version, nor do i know what it was
edited on - i was told it was likely to be vegas with the hd plugin (?).
since i'm not interested in hd till i can see a serious market, or am called
upon to shoot/edit it, i'll continue to investigate and assess the options,
which as we all know, are subject to market hype and a fair degree of smoke
and mirrors as to editing programs.

but if you're happy with sd, any sd dv 3 chip is going to give you good
results (unless your doing 'reality' tv in low light etc.,). try a s/h 150,
hire a 170, or similar and give it a good test run, from shoot to final
edit.

good luck,

leslie


"doc" <doc@drdimento.net> wrote in message
news:mu2We.5612$sa6.4626@trndny06...
> hi and thanks for the response. i know they'll air it because we pay them
> too but what i'm especially worrried about is whether the end result of
> converting from 12+ year old betamax to digital at SD with the Sony FX1 +
> liquid edition pro as the editor will lower our quality, equal our
> quality, or improve our quality.
>
> i ran a test on a little handycam from panasonic (entry level consumer
> product) and the result is much lower than our present taping arrangement
> but then our betacam's cost something like 20 g's each new THEN and
> although i don't know the exact spec's i think their something like 400
> lines of res or thereabouts.
>
> so, afterthoughts?
>
> doc
>
> "ushere" <kaywand@REMoVEaBUSebigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:oe2We.47486$FA3.34536@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> anything is broadcast quality if a broadcaster wants to show it.
>>
>> leslie
>>
>> (produced broadcast doco's from vhs thru digibeta to dv. if they like it,
>> they'll pay and air).
>>
>> "doc" <doc@drdimento.net> wrote in message
>> news:GJXVe.14836$FT6.12722@trndny02...
>>> Hi group. I've posted under some other headers looking for comparisons
>>> between the Sony FX1 nad Sony Z1U and found there to be little
>>> difference and thus wanted to know if anyone else has used the Sony FX1
>>> for broadcast quality material? Or, if anyone out there knows what
>>> we're wanting to do witll work?
>>>
>>> We currently use 12 year old Sony cameras (expensive in their day) and
>>> Sony Betacam recorder and do a "live" production through Sony switching
>>> and mixing panel(s) and want to go to post production so that we don't
>>> have to start over every time when something goes wrong :o)
>>>
>>> Thus, we want to convert to the Sony FX1's recording to DV, then capture
>>> the footage into Liquid Edition or Canopus Edius Pro 3, then edit and
>>> dub out to DVD, Sony Betamax SP and Sony SVHS formats for delivery to
>>> our local, nationwide, and satellite networks and want to see if there
>>> are any who can confirm that the quality of the programming will not be
>>> sacrificed (and maybe even improved :o) from our present arrangement.
>>>
>>> Please help and many thanks in advance.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Back to original message]